Schmoo comments on Libs do love perpetuating that western invented "magical" word 😁

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net -2 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

If it's not independent then it's not proletarian. The state doesn't crush independent unions because they're opposed to the socialist system, but because they are a threat to the authority of the state. I believe people have a right to self-determination, and preventing workers from organizing on their own terms violates that right. The means of production should belong only to those who actually do the work of production, not private individuals and not the state claiming falsely to represent them in the abstract. I'm a syndicalist in that I believe that the purpose of unions is eventually to overthrow the hierarchy and establish a cooperative, not to settle and become a class collaborationist union or an arm of a class collaborationist state, though it is preferable to no union at all.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

states exist to establish the supremacy of a class

Already we're dropping the pretense of eliminating class, which is the entire premise of communism. A system which establishes supremacy in any form could never hope to eliminate class.

Independence from socialism is a petty bourgeois notion, not proletarian.

And again you are uncritically equivocating socialism and the state. Socialism can and does exist independently of the state whenever workers collectively organize production and distribution anywhere and for any reason. Cooperatives are socialist, not petty bourgeois, because the workers themselves have collectivized the means of production. Small businesses that are privately owned are petty bourgeois.

These [socialism and the state] are one and the same in the context of a socialist state transitioning towards communism.

Always transitioning towards but never quite getting any closer and never will without the people themselves acting collectively to dismantle the state. The idea that the state will just "dissolve," or even more ridiculously disassemble itself, is absurd.

This slogan sounds nice, but ultimately just means that people should have a right to undermine socialism against the will of the people.

Again, people collectivizing the means of production on their own terms does not undermine socialism, it undermines the state. It's funny you suggest people acting on their own initiative undermines their own will, and not the state cracking down on them. I thought from our previous interactions that you were more reasonable than this.

a union in a socialist system is somehow "class collaborationist" for being official and supported by said socialist state requires a ton of heavy lifting on your part.

A union in any system that stops short of supplanting the boss and siezing the means of production is class collaborationist. Such a union in a capitalist republic is essentially just a bureaucratic arm of the company that serves as controlled opposition, and in a "socialist" republic is a bureaucratic arm of the state that exists to ensure the working class acts in the state's interest. You think the latter is acceptable because you believe the state truly represents the will of the people, but I believe that only the people themselves are truly representative of their will.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 child)

[removed by mod]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] Schmoo@slrpnk.net -3 points 10 months ago

Communism is a post-socialist mode of production established by resolving the contradictions within socialism. States eradicate themselves by eradicating the basis of class, and this happens by collectivizing production and distribution.

The contradictions within socialism will not be resolved without people acting on their own initiative to resolve them. The state siezing the means of production and claiming it is doing so on behalf of the people forms a new basis of class, it does not eliminate it. It is simply taking the means of production from one set of private hands to another more centralized set that is only somewhat more responsive to the people's will. The people must act of their own initiative to forcibly decentralize the power of the state until no hierarchy remains in order to eliminate class.

Cooperatives are petty bourgeois collectives of private property, not socialist property. The idea of competing small cells of worker-owners is petty bourgeois in origin and stands opposed to collectivized production and distribution.

Who says they have to compete? Realistically they would form federations to organize production and distribution on larger scales. Cooperatives in Italy do this, though they face strong resistance from corporations and the state as they do so. If you have eaten Parmigiano Reggiano you have eaten something created by many small cooperatives banding together to collectivize production and distribution. The cheese is made with milk from many small cooperatively owned farms that pool their resources together and share in the profits.